THE ISSUE:  During the criminal trial, FBI footwear specialist William Bodziak testified for the prosecution concerning the bloody trail of shoe prints that led from the crime scene to the alley.  In particular, he identified (June 19, 1995) the shoes that had created the trail as of a Bruno Magli brand, size 12.  (Bodziak also testified in the civil trial on November 20/21, 1996.)

             During cross-examination, defense lawyer, F. Lee Bailey opined that there were “too many” footsteps in this trail, and asked if it was not laid down in two separate trips.  (Even though none of the footprints except one very faint one near the bodies pointed back in the direction of the crime scene.)  Bodziak agreed that it looked that way to him, and the conventional understanding ever since has been that the Bruno Magli trail was laid down in two trips – or is a bogus creation.  (This was a standard practice of the defense: to portray that the crime scene contained mysterious and complicated indications, inconsistent with the simple idea that Simpson had murdered the victims and fled home.)

             However, in the criminal trial Bodziak said, “Stride or gait analysis is -- a person’s gait is the distance between their left and right and left and right footprints as they walk in a straight normal fashion.    This is not a tool which is used forensically for crime scene photographs, but one which is used by trackers…”  In the civil trail attorney Baker asked, “You could determine stride analysis, the gait analysis was that of a person walking, not running, from the shoe prints you could observe on Exhibit 40?”  Bodziak answers, “No.  I don’t examine stride analysis.”  From these and other comments, it was apparent that Bodziak did not hold himself up as an expert at stride analysis, and even disdained its forensic value.  It seems a mistake, then, that the world has been quick to accept his offhand opinion on the subject of “two paths” to be authoritative.

             OBJECTIVE:  It is the objective of this analysis to determine whether one man, particularly of Simpson’s size, could have made the track down Nicole’s back walk, particularly under the circumstances that are indicated to have existed at the time.  Specifically, there is fairly wide agreement that the Bruno Magli trail was laid down at about 10:35 pm, and at that time the bodies of the dead victims were lying near Nicole’s front gate.   (Heidstra saw the “white SUV” about 10:37, and Shively had a close encounter with Simpson at 10:39)  However, it is not the primary objective to determine if Simpson himself laid down the Bruno Magli trail, but only if a man of his build (wearing size 12 shoes) could have reasonably done so.

             GROUND RULES:   The analysis of a footprint trail is bounded by the realities of physiology and orthopedics – particularly the ways and distances that the legs can be moved.  Furthermore, this particular analysis is also bounded by the detailed indications in the photographs of the footprints.

             Stride Length:  “Walking” is the act of moving the legs in such way that support for the body’s weight is alternately provided by the left and right feet, while the opposite foot is thereby made free to be moved forward.  In walking (as contrasted “running” or “leaping”) one or the other foot is in contact with the ground (substantially) at all times.  Although we do not know for sure that the man in the Bruno Magli shoes was “walking” at all parts of his path, there are indications that he was usually moving slowly, and so a walking gait is assumed here.

             A length-unit of walking is the “stride” – the distance that the walker moves between one position of the feet and a repetition of that same configuration.  For example, a walk involves stepping on the right foot/left foot/ right foot/… etc.  The distance between the first position of the left foot and the next position is a “stride length”.  The English word for the long distance unit is “mile,” and this is derived from the Latin, “mille passuum,” or “thousand paces.”  This comes about because in the days of the Roman Legion marching soldiers would count a thousand strides from one rest stop to the next, and erect a “milestone” at each.  Hence, “mile” became a unit of distance measure.  Now, a mile is 5,280 feet, from which the standard stride of the Roman soldier was 5.28 feet.  A half-stride – the distance from the left foot to the next step by the right foot – is half this, or 2.64 feet. 

             For my own use in pacing off distances I have found that 2-1/2 feet per half-stride is reasonably reliable, and I notice that this corresponds closely to the Roman standard.  I have also experimented with other half-stride lengths, and I find that for me (6’ tall), when walking in a straight line…

             * to 1- feet: A slow, deliberate walk

             * 2 feet: Casual indoor walk

             * 2- feet: Comfortable outdoor walk

             * 3 feet: Exaggerated steps

             * 4 feet: Maximum step length

             * 5 feet: Easy leap.

             (In some places I have used the colloquial “stride” to mean a half-stride: the distance from one footfall to the next, of the opposite foot.   Such use is obvious from the context since I rate as a normal such “stride” as 30 inches.)

             Directional Variation:  One does not always walk straight ahead, of course, the leg can be moved through an azimuth before putting it down.  A casual experiment shows that while standing on the right foot, the left may be put down at a place varying from 90 degrees to the left, to about 45 degrees to the right (crossing over) of the right foot, at a distance of nearly a full stride away from the right foot.

             “Smear”:  It has been alleged (Prien, 1/21/02) “But as Bodziak also testified, there is NO EVIDENCE OF ANY MOVEMENT WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF THE IMPRINT PATTERNS.  The imprints are all clear and unsmudged.”  If true, this would bar any rotation (twist) or translation (sliding) of the foot while it was in contact with the ground where the shoe print was found.  When this was further investigated, what Bodziak said was that he could see no indication of speed in the details of the prints, from which a person might infer that they were unsmudged, at least with respect to sliding.  This is ambiguous enough, however, that I consider the matter to be unsettled.

             Sequence:   Bodziak has labeled the footprints for discussion, and it is possible to infer a sequence to the steps in the order of these labels.   However there is no testimony that Bodziak intended that the sequence of his letters was the same as the sequence in which the steps were laid down.  In fact, I think that Bodziak would disclaim such an intention, and we will assume that the order of the labels has no significance.

             METHOD:  I have conjectured a specific sequence of foot movements consistent with the Bodziak drawing and the circumstances of a man leaving the crime scene.   Where this has produce an awkward or unusual gait, I have pasted pieces of paper on the floor and steps inside my house, and walked myself through the process.  In particular, I have traced 1) leaving the bodies to “B”/“D,” 2) the hesitation/turning movement in “H” through “O”, and 3) the turning maneuver in the vicinity of “S”.  I am six feet tall – as Simpson is, and presumably (from the size 12 shoes) the man in the Bruno Maglis was.  Some of these movements were a little awkward, and getting up the dark steps in the first tries were stumbling (I did not actually fall down), but all of them were possible.

             LIGHTING:  Figure 1 has been prepared to show how the situation at thenicend6.jpg (9092 bytes) bottom of the steps was illuminated.  The only direct light came from the porch light, whose position was analyzed in “Agapanthus Illumination.”  It was calculated that this would first strike the lower walkway 9 inches toward the condo from the gate threshold.  Figure 1 [NICEND6.JPG] is an elevation view showing Nicole’s fallen body from the bottom (south end).  It can be seen that the higher parts – left leg, left upper arm, and probably some hair – is in the light, but the rest of her body will be in profound shadows.  More important for this analysis, the steps themselves are in the dark, and a man approaching from the west would not be aware that the first step was covered with blood until his foot encountered it.

             LEAVING THE SCENE:   Figure 2 [ CROPFULL.JPG] is a drawing of the cropfull.jpg (35519 bytes)Nicole’s front walk where her body was found, near the front gate.   The first footsteps of the Bruno Magli trail, with Bodziak’s designation, “A” through “F” are shown; right foot is black, left foot is gray.  There are two unlabeled footprints on the south side of the third step, and I have designated these as “UR” (Unlabeled right) and “UL” (Unlabeled left).   In previous articles I have discussed that there is an indication of missing blood on the north side of the first step (see “Blood on the Step”) as though someone has stepped in the blood pool there, and also in area in front of Nicole’s chest (see “River of Blood”).  I have labeled these as “BL” (where the left foot picked up blood) and “BR” (where the right foot picked up blood).  Also notice Q68, which is Bodziak’s designation for a partial left footprint near the north gate post.  Not labeled on this drawing is left footprint Q67 nearby which points into the alcove.

             Starting Point:  We will arbitrarily assume that Q68 is the last left foot position of the man before he started to leave the scene.  Although his actual exit could have started differently, our purpose is to show that there is A WAY that a man could make this trail with one trip, and we know that the man was at Q68 at one time, so assuming that Q68 is the last footstep before exiting is one valid starting point for the analysis.  We have also hypothesized that the man had his right foot beside the left, at “HR,” at the start.  There is no definite indication on the tiles of this, but the blood haze there would conceal any such marks, so there is no contrary indication, either.  (“HR” could also have been a few inches back of the indicated position, and would then have been off the walk, in the dirt, and would not have left an indication for that reason.)

             The following sequence takes the man from the alcove threshold to the third step and walkway:






@ Q68

@ HR

left foot points 15 W of S


Q68 to BL

@ HR

vantage to look back along upper walk; 45 W of S


@ BL

HR to BR

both feet in blood now


BL to A

@ BR

unstable; forward momentum, stumble ahead


@ A

BR to B

still some threat of pitching forward


A to UL

@ B

UL is too faint to have born any weight


UL to D

@ B

stable position; could have paused here

             Stability:   I tried following this path myself, with scraps of paper pasted to the floor and steps, to show where the feet should go.  In all cases, the first footstep led to a stable position (“BL”/”HR”) that I could hold indefinitely.  But once I took the second step, I had a westward momentum that inclined me to pitch on my face unless I quickly took the next steps, and I did not reach a stable position until my feet were on the third step and upper walk (“B”/”D”); I could pause there indefinitely.  However, I did this maneuver repeatedly, to be sure of my results, and over time I got the rhythm of it “in my bones,” and eventually the maneuver was nearly stable at every step along the path.  Nonetheless, I expect that on his first try, the man in the Bruno Magli shoes would have gone from steps 2 to 5 in one continuous movement, maybe with a slight stumble.  I notice that this is particularly likely, since the steps were outside of the illumination, and he could not see where to put his feet.

             Furtiveness:   The man in the Bruno Magli shoes did not go into the house and use the telephone to call police about what he had seen at the front gate.  And, nobody ever came forward later and admitted to having worn Bruno Magli shoes and having been at the crime scene that night.  The man who made those tracks has kept his presence secret, and thus it is a fair guess that even at the time he was there he did not want to be identified with this crime scene.  That being the case we can reasonably think that when he was at the scene he may have acted furtively, and tried to avoid being seen.  Though, in some cases, as when walking away in the full illumination of the porch light, this was not completely possible; at that time he might want to create an image of plausible innocence, in case he was caught flat-footed.  So, it was a balancing act: stay in the shadows when he could, and when he could not, he would appear to be not hiding.  (This is also an explanation for why he generally walked slowly toward the alley -- to not appear as a guilty man fleeing, in case he was caught in the act.   A lack of “tails” on the drops of the five-drop trail, as well as the gait indicated by the footprints, show a slow rate of progress.)

             The foregoing is consistent with a thing I felt keenly in my re-enactment of the exit maneuver.  At the starting place by the gate post I realized that I was almost entirely out of sight from both the street and the house, because of the poor lighting and obstructions to view.  But, when I took the first step to “BL” that put me squarely silhouetted against the porch light, and I wondered why I had done that.  Well, in this posture I would have been looking west, and had a clear view along the upper walk all the way to the porch; I could verify that the exit path was clear.  When I realized that, I could see that a final pre-exit step to BL was not only indicated in the blood pool itself, but served a strategic necessity as well.  And, realizing that, I am more sure than ever that “BL” was the final left foot location on the lower walk, and the place where the man got the great mass of blood on that shoe.  

             (Incidentally, when the first footstep is to “BL” and is for the purpose of looking along the upper walk, the movement is somewhat of a lunge, and the posture is somewhat of a fencer’s stance.  Also, the foot comes down in that position rather hard, and would throw up a spray if there was any depth to the blood pool there, as we believe from “Finite Spreading Rate of Blood Pool”.  There also is a definite slapping down of the right foot at “BR” on the first step that would throw up a spray if there was significant depth, as we believe from the photographs of that pool.)

             SETTING OUT:   Having escaped from the immediate death scene, the man in the Bruno Magli shoes now sets out for the alley, slipping into a normal stride after the awkwardness on the steps is corrected for.  As previously mentioned, he moves at a slow relaxed rate so as not to attract the suspicion of anybody who might see him.  And, that possibility is more than idle fantasy, since at this time there was a commotion in the street: the Akita was barking wildly there and at least one other dog in a yard was barking, too.  In Figure 3 [BODZ92.JPG] we follow his progress…

bodz91.jpg (149407 bytes)






@ D

@ B

left foot on upper walk; stable position


@ D

B to C

right foot onto upper walk


D to E

@ C

30” stride; normal length, left


@ E

C  to F

30” stride; normal stride, right


E to G

@ F

drift to right to avoid planter; 30” stride


@ G

F to I

28” stride


G to H

@ I

incomplete stride; distraction indicated

             SUDDEN WARINESS:   We see that the man in the Bruno Magli shoes was making natural progress from “D” and “B” until he got to “I” and “H”.  At that point, normal continuation of his path would have put his left foot down at “K” instead of “H,” but something interrupted his progress, and he stopped short.  Then he does complete the stride to “K,” puts his foot down tentatively, and absently moves it slightly to “J” before planting it for sure.  The man is distracted, alright.

             On the assumption that this man in the Bruno Magli shoes is the person Heidstra saw driving away two minutes later in the “white SUV,” we know what the cause of his distraction was.  This man also heard the “Hey, hey, hey,” that Heidstra described, and may have been worried that he had been spotted; he was attentive to hear more. 






@ H

@ I

incomplete stride; hesitation, as to listen


H to K

@ I

complete the previous step, but tentative


K to J

@ I

finally plant left foot during this distraction


@ J

I to L

30” stride, land rotated 90 CCW




This is the posture of one looking back to street


J to N

@ L

unstable; begin quick stagger


@ N

L to O

right foot stable; quickly move left now


N to M

@ O

backed into bushes; stable position; could wait

             This analysis seems to clearly confirm the conjecture in the criminal trial that the man backed into the north planter bed in order to look back at the street.  When I put my feet in the same position I found that my body was twisted in such a way that I would have been able to look to my left and see east down the walk, and to the street.  And, of course, by backing into the planter bed the man minimized his own exposure to detection.  Presumably, he did not continue west until his observation satisfied him that there was nobody on the lower walk to observe him if he continued.

             We also see that his concern about some disturbance from the street took a couple of steps to fully develop.  The first indication is when he takes a half-stride to H, but he has not turned to actually look back until footstep “L.”  Combining this with Heidstra’s testimony we can guess that the initial hesitation was upon hearing “Hey, hey, hey,” and the further caution was upon hearing the second man’s voice and trying to make out what he was saying.

             GO INTO THE CONDO?   In this part of the path, the man in the Bruno Magli shoes resumes his travel toward the alley, going up the little two step rise to the porch at “R” with the left foot, and bounding over the steps with the right foot, “Q” to “T”.  Starting at position “O” and “M” from which he listened to sounds from the street, the man’s track drifts south, in the direction of the open condo door.   The right foot goes in a rather straight line from “O” to “T,” 16 inches to the south, even though the ultimate path is directly west from “O”.  This indicates that the man in the Bruno Magli shoes had some interest in the condo door.  We see this even more clearly in the next (left) footstep which is crossed at “S” behind the right foot.  This causes a twist in the body, so that the man is directly facing the condo door.  Furthermore, this is a rather stable position, and the man could have spent a few seconds thus, as is suggested by the fact that footstep “S” is distinct, indicating that a fair amount of blood was transferred at that point.

             Upon leaving position “S”/“T”, the man proceeds with small steps, suggesting some uncertainty about his decision not to go in through the open condo door.  He seems to hesitate again at “X” and “Y.”  These are the last distinct footprints, and by their identifiability so late in the path, they indicate that the man did not just walk over these points, but stood there for a moment.  Finally, he continues, but still with small, hesitant steps, toward the alley.  The last part of the path, to beyond the porch light range, is…






@ M

@ O

hidden from view; listening to sounds from street


M to P

@ O

set out for alley again


@ P

O to Q

22” stride; cautious


P to R

@ Q

go up first porch step; 20” stride


@ R

Q to T

first step on porch; 34” stride (long)


R to S

@ T

l. foot crossed behind r.; fairly stable position




This is the posture of one facing the condo door.


S to V

@ T

resume toward alley; 25” stride



T to U

bring r. foot behind l., as still looking back at door


@ V

U to W

continue walk toward alley; “16” stride (short)


V to X

@ W

full X-imprint, as though standing for a moment


@ X

W to Y

full Y-imprint, as though standing for a moment


X to Z

@ Y

resume walk toward alley; 16” stride


@ Z

Y to AA

tiny step; 6” stride

             We notice that footsteps “M” and “O” represent a divide in the amount of blood on the shoes.  Up to this point, all but one (15 of 16) of the footprints are distinct enough to be rated as right or left, with a direction indicated.  After this point only 3 of 12 footprints are so distinct.  This suggests that the man in the Bruno Magli shoes may have stood for a good part of a minute at “M”/“O”, and had little blood left on his shoes when he left that position.  It also leads us to believe that indistinct prints before that point indicate an unusually light step, and distinct prints after that point indicate an unusually heavy step, or a pause, as if standing for a moment.

             The overall impression is that the man in the Bruno Magli shoes was thinking about going into the condo, decided against it, but continued for a few steps to wonder if he had made the right choice, perhaps looking back from “X”/“Y”, the last position from which he could still see the front door.

             ENTERING THE SCENE:   The foregoing has traced the path of the man in the Bruno Magli shoes from the front gate post to beyond the porch, but the alert reader will notice that there is one footprint Bodziak found that this path does not explain: the unmarked footprint on the third step I have labeled “UR”.  This is the only footprint in 45 or so that points toward the east – toward the front gate – and it is within stepping distance of a blood pool.

             I believe that “UR” was produced as the man entered the scene initially, when his shoes had not yet encountered any blood.  He got to the point where his left foot was on the second step at “HL” (hypothetical left) and his right foot was on the third step at a.  (See Figure 4 [CROP_IN.JPG].)crop-in.jpg (25625 bytes)  From here he could clearly see the parts of Nicole illuminated by the porch light behind him (and anything that may have been left laying on her shoulder), and may also have noticed Goldman’s body, dimly lit, if he looked in the direction of the alcove.  But, he wouldn’t have been able to see the surface of the steps he was descending, and so wouldn’t have known that blood covered most of the first step.   I think he may have proceeded in the following way…






@ HL

@ a

walking down steps into crime scene


@ HL

a to blood

step into darkened blood pool on first step


@ HL

blood to UR

withdraw foot in surprise (horror?)


@ HL

UR to b

step to behind Nicole’s shoulder


HL to g

@ b

step to edge of walk beside alcove

             At this point, his right shoe was probably completely (but maybe lightly) covered with blood, and his left foot probably picked up patches of blood from stepping on the walk between Nicole’s body and the alcove.  As long as he stayed in the area between Nicole and the alcove, most of that was covered with a blood haze (apparently wiped) and his own bloody footprints would not be discerned.  But twice he got onto the unstained margin of that alcove threshold and produced Q67 and Q68.  Since there are no other Bruno Magli footprints on the lower walkway, the man apparently did not look around much, or spend much time there.  Q67 indicates that he stepped into the alcove to examine the second victim (to try to identify him?).  But since there are no bloody footprints east of the gate threshold or south of Nicole’s wrist, all of which area were clear of bloody haze, the man in the Bruno Magli shoes did not go very far. 

             It is my interpretation that the man in the Bruno Magli shoes 1) tried briefly to identify Goldman, 2) accomplished the purpose that brought him to the scene in the first place, and 3) left immediately thereafter, without ever going beyond the area of the blood haze and the blood pools.  I can visualize there being only as few as seven footsteps (taking less than 20 seconds), including those in the alcove and the blood pool, below the first step.

             CONCLUSION:   This study has demonstrated that the Bruno Magli trail can be explained by one man, making one trip in a reasonable way, if allowance is made for the fact that he was influenced by external factors as he went.  Insofar as this simple explanation is possible, there does not seem to be any need for a more complicated one (as multiple men in Bruno Magli shoes, multiple trips by the same man, or a deliberately planted bogus trail). 

             This study also suggests that…

             * The man in the Bruno Magli shoes was both trying to avoid being seen, but assuming a posture that would appear innocent if he was caught.

*He staggered somewhat as he came up the steps from the bodies, and was briefly off balance.  When he first set out along the upper walkway, he went with a normal stride.

* Soon after he started along the upper walk, he was distracted by sounds behind him from Bundy, and he paused to listen to those before continuing, trying to conceal himself in the shrubs as he did.

             * He contemplated the open condo door as he passed, and went slowly in the vicinity, as though thinking of going inside.

             * When he was in the vicinity of the bodies he did not range beyond the area between the corpses, and probably spent less than 20 seconds there.  He did appear to examine Goldman’s body, as if to identify him.  I also believe, though this study doesn’t show it, that he picked up the bloody right hand glove before he left the scene.  (He was in a position to do so if it was on the upper part of Nicole’s body; in such a place it would have been in the light for him to see.)

             Dick Wagner • Van Nuys, CA    (1/25/02)   NG_740A.doc

ps: Thanks to Prien for leading me to details in the transcript that I otherwise would have overlooked.




             On June 19, 1995 special FBI agent William Bodziak testified in the criminal trial about his efforts to identify the type (Bruno Magli) and size (12) of shoe that left the bloody trail down Nicole’s walk.  Later (September 14, 15, 18) he testified in the prosecution’s rebuttal phase refuting defense claims that indications of other people were seen at the Bundy site.  In the civil trial Bodziak testified on November 20/21, 1996, largely reciting his earlier testimony.   Some of his testimony warrants footnote status here.

             The Squeegee Effect:  Much of Bodziak’s June 19th testimony involved showing the jury transparent overlays of a standard Bruno Magli shoe pattern superimposed on crime scene photos of questioned prints.  Bodziak would then point out the near perfect match of the two and assert thereby it was proof that the crime scene prints were made by size 12 Bruno Magli shoes.  But, it was noticed by the attorney (Goldberg) that sometimes the match was not perfect – the crime scene image extended slightly beyond the standard image.  Bodziak said that this was caused by the “squeegee effect,” whereby blood on the shoe was squeezed out of the space between the shoe and the pavement, creating a slightly overblown image of the questioned print.

             Unlabeled Prints:  These two prints Bodziak called Q122, on the south end of the third step (which includes print “B” at the other end), are described as “both very, very light, and fragmented.”   Apparently, they were not even recognized as bloody shoe prints by the police photographer because they are the only ones for which he did not provide forensic quality straight-down images.  Bodziak spotted these on an oblique view which had been created for another purpose.  Bodziak could not make an overlap match for them because of the vagueness of the image and the oblique direction of the view.  But, he believed them to be Bruno Magli prints, and he was able to discern the left/right sense and direction.  We have accepted that opinion here.

             The interpretation we have made of these prints is that they were places where the foot was tentatively brought and lightly set, but body weight was not put on the feet in those positions.  Notice that it was conjectured that the right foot was put in the blood of the first step, withdrawn to “UR”, and immediately stepped down to the lower walk behind Nicole’s shoulder.  In this action, no significant weight is put on the foot at “UR” and that print could have been very light even though the bottom of the shoe was covered with blood.  Similarly, upon exit it was speculated that the left foot went from the blood pool in the front walk to “A”, and then while the man’s body weight was still on “B” it went successively to “UL” and “D”.   In this maneuver, position “UL” could have been tentative without any weight being put on the foot, and in that way the print would have been light to any degree.

             Persistence:   It would be interesting to see an opinion of how persistent footprints could be if the wearer stepped once in blood.  One indication in Bodziak’s testimony that I was able to find was his description on 11/20/96 of an experiment in which he stepped into liquid latex paint while wearing the Bruno Magli shoes and then stepped several times on paper.   He showed the resulting paper samples in court, and apparently the images became noticeably weaker in the three steps.  An interesting experiment, but latex paint is not blood, more important paper is not concrete, and  most important Bodziak’s way of stepping might not have been the way of the man in the Bruno Magli shoes.  I can not extrapolate this experiment to conclude anything about whether the man in the Bruno Magli shoes could have left footprints of the extent seen.  Bodziak did not make such an explicit extrapolation, either.

             On June 19th during the criminal trial, Bodziak responded to prosecutor Goldberg’s question, “MR. GOLDBERG: Can you give us an estimation as to how quickly footprints in blood may disappear to the point where you wouldn't see anything that you could recognize as a shoeprint, you might just see lines or squiggles or whatever?”


MR. BODZIAK: There will be things that cause variables, that is the

porosity of the surface, the amount of blood that's initially stepped on,

whether it's a pool of blood or whether it's blood that has already been

coating the surfaces, is rather flat, which wouldn't be as three

dimensional. But if there's a heavy coating of blood, it normally

disappears in approximately six to 10 steps.


             Of this I notice that (not counting the faint unlabeled prints on the third step) there was enough seen of 7 right and 10 left prints to allow positive identification.  (Beyond that number there was enough to see, but not to “recognize as a shoeprint”.)  Realizing that the prints that could not be identified were merely bloodstains that were inferred to be footprints by their location and context, I think the circumstances of the Bundy trail fairly well match the expectations that Bodziak expressed for the persistence of blood on the shoes.

             Furthermore, as we shall see, the first four footsteps (“A” thru “D”) involve only the sole, as though the man was “walking on his toes” and so there was not even a mechanism to lose blood from the heels until the fifth footstep.  Finally, one should realize that the Bodziak chart uses a little picture of a whole foot to indicate prints that could be positively identified as Bruno Magli size 12, and for which the left/right sense and direction could be determined.  However, the footprint itself was often not a full shoe print, but only a heel or part of a sole.  For example, Figure 5 [BM_HEEL.JPG]bm_heel.jpg (45341 bytes) (footprint “N”?) shows a representative shoe print that could be fully identified and defined; it would get the full shoe symbol on the Bodziak chart, but is only a heel and a faint suggestion of a sole.  The solidity of the prints deteriorated greatly at footprint “O”; up to that point 15 of 16 prints could be completely identified, after that point only 3 of 12 could be. 

             Labeled Prints:  A good deal of time in Bodziak’s June 19th testimony was spent in showing how he could positively identify, with the overlay, that prints in the main trail were made by size 12 Bruno Magli shoes.  In the course of doing so, he briefly described each of the positively identified labeled prints, and from that we have abstracted a description of those.






left sole


left sole, no heel


right sole




right sole


right heel and sole


left sole


left sole


left heel and sole


left heel


r. side of right sole and heel


right heel and sole


left sole, suggestion of heel


left heel


left heel and sole


left heel and part of sole


right heel and sole


right heel and part of sole

             Although the other marks identified as elements of the Bruno Magli trail were too indistinct to allow positive identification as being from those shoes, they are blood stains consistent with such shoes, and because of their spatial context we have accepted, for this analysis, Bodziak’s opinion that they were part of the Bruno Magli trail.


back.gif (2777 bytes)